Assuming that the “he’s set up, but that’s a good thing” crowd is relatively small, that suggests that almost all of the “don’t knows” on the “set up/genuine” question support extradition.

Which is entirely expected, of course: in the general case if you ask me “do you think X is guilty of Y?” my answer is going to be “don’t know”, if you ask me “do you think X should be investigated for Y?” then my answer will be “yes” unless I have reason to suspect a set-up.

I think anybody that has been following this story closely will recognise that this has clearly been a set up.

America has had a strangle hold over the press for years. This time the world is watching

Steve,

Of course you could be right: but do you think that Mr Assange should stand trial anyway?

This is a really good article that explains why great care is needed in discussion of sexual assault allegations in order to not minimise the seriousness of sexual assault, and to not victim-blame the complainants – Jessica Valenti: What we talk about when we talk about rape:

Piling on the accuser with victim-blaming language, or questioning why this account doesn’t match what we think sexual assault should look like, doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Millions of people are watching and listening as these rape myths are repeated ad nauseam. A 2008 study by Renee Franiuk, published in the journal Violence Against Women, revealed that these narratives make victims less likely to take their own experiences seriously and more afraid of reporting what’s been done to them. Advocates echo these findings: “Media attention around cases such as Kobe [Bryant] and Duke [University], where victim blaming is intense and daily, makes our work even more challenging,” says Stacy Malone, executive director of the Victim Rights Law Center. “It can cause victims to question themselves and silence them into not telling their experiences and not seeking services.”

I’d really recommend reading it all. It is possible to discuss Assanges legal situation and to speculate about Sweden’s motives in pursuing the case so thoroughly without contributing to the trivialisation of rape and the silencing of victims.

@MariaS
That is a truly offensive post.

That article isn’t by Jessica Valenti MariaS (wasn’t that on Jezebel?) but it’s spot on anyway.

I’ve seen no evidence that there is a political motivation for Sweden pursuing the case in the way they are. Jaclyn Freedman’s article (linked by MariaS) was mistaken in suggesting that Interpol had spent too much effort on the case. The fact is, Interpol only issued a red notice because Sweden asked it to. There is no evidence that Interpol did anything more than circulate the red notice as requested. And the contents of the notice (missing photo, note saying that photo of Assange was unavailable) hardly suggested that much time or resources had been applied. It is interesting to speculate that it was OTT of Sweden to ask Interpol to issue the notice, but since no one has actually established whether Sweden would normally make such a request in similar circumstances, we don’t really know. In any case, contrary to the US media reports, we know there was no “international manhunt”. The UK police knew where Assange was but didn’t arrest him on the basis of the red notice (incorrectly called an arrest warrant by some media), instead waiting for the European Arrest Warrant.

oops, thanks Sunny. It’s by Jaclyn Friedman.

Jessica Valenti has written about this in the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html

and there is more on her blog: http://jessicavalenti.com/category/blog/

I am amazed it is as high as that, seeing as so many of the sheeple get their views from the tory tabloids.

“I’ve seen no evidence that there is a political motivation…..”

No of course you haven’t. Just like you have not seen the US govt use Matercard, Visa, Amazon and pay pal to try to shut down his site.

And just like you have not read how the US tried to screw up legal process in Spain to stop laws they did not like. Or how US politicians owned by the military industrial complex want to make him a terrorist.

They US is an outaw nation.

Here’s Jessica Valenti’s piece, also excellent: AOL News at the center of “sex by surprise” lie in Assange’s rape case
(it appeared both on her own site, linked, and on Jezebel)

@ RichardP yes, the focus on Interpol rather than on the Swedish authorities is not quite right. But that is not the point of Friedman’s article. She’s discussing how we talk about the case. Many many people ARE talking about the case against Assange as being politically motivated, as being a set-up. There is a huge amount of online discourse around the case, not to mention masses of speculation and confusion. A lot of people who want to support Assange are making the mistake of doing so by dismissing, speculating about and verbally attacking the women complainants and by perpetuating rape myths.

Hooray! Bail granted. Now to get the ridiculous extradition claim dismissed.

I seem to remember some some child abuse accusations being levelled against Scott Ritter at around the time that he was challenging the WMD argument for invading Iraq.

As far as I know, nothing ever came of them.

And, in this country, the police often use allegations to discredit the people they have killed in controversial circumstances.

David Ellis,

Hooray! Bail granted. Now to get the ridiculous extradition claim dismissed.

Ridiculous or not, it needs to be dealt with in court since there is an accuser. You presumably do not want a guilty man to go free just because you happen to agree with him politically?

And you may be in line for a lot of abuse from various feminists who make the (valid) point that far too many people are ignoring the seriousness of the offence because of who the accused is.

Watchman – thanks.

What watchman said

“I seem to remember some some child abuse accusations being levelled against Scott Ritter at around the time that he was challenging the WMD argument for invading Iraq. ”

Bingo …..we have a winner!

Remeber Cheney said to Hans Blick, ” we will destroy you”

Nice to see Watchman shrilling for the American security state,

Obviously he has accusations to face and it is unfair to just dismiss out of hand the women involved as if it was a setup. However, the pertinent issue is he being treated the same as anyone else in similar circumstances? Why would it matter to Sweden whether he was granted bail? The court demanding a large sum only payable in cash all seems a bit strange. If he is not being treated the same as anyone else in similar circumstances. He is effectively being politically persecuted.

Wee bit of irony for Sweden with another current international case. Relatively weel-kent Swedish music dude, ‘Basshunter’ has been charged with 2 sexual assaults here in Scotland, has a definite court date in January, but is presently happily back home in Sweden:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11990845

“Dance music star Basshunter has been charged by police over an alleged sex assault on two female fans at a Fife nightclub gig.

Jonas Erik Altberg, 25, was charged by Fife Constabulary over allegations made at Kitty’s nightclub in Kirkcaldy in the early hours of Friday.

Officers questioned the former Celebrity Big Brother star over claims he attacked the pair.

That led to him being charged under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009.

He was released on bail and is due to appear at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court to answer the charges in January.

Basshunter played another set in Glasgow on Saturday but was understood to be back home in Sweden on Tuesday.

A Fife Constabulary spokesman said: “Police in Fife can confirm that a 25-year-old man has been arrested in relation to alleged offences committed at Kitty’s, Hunter Street, Kirkcaldy, and has been bailed to appear at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court in due course.”

Basshunter had a UK number one single with Now You’re Gone in 2007.

He also featured in this year’s final series of Celebrity Big Brother.

Basshunter’s manager, Scott Simons, insisted the allegations were “totally untrue”.

He stressed his client would fully co-operate with the police investigation”

Not that I’m trying to say the 2 cases are equivalent or anything…just…mildly ironic, no?

Andy Gilmour,

Well spotted.

Well, yes. It is a bit ironic.

We obviously trust someone accused of a sexual offence to appear in court to answer the case, despite returning to Sweden. And, presumeably the Scottish Court could also issue an EAW if they didn’t. Which is exactly where we have got to with the Assange case.

I genuinely think that, whatever the outcome of the Assange case in England, he must return to Sweden to face the questions put. Else whatever credibility he has will be destroyed. And much the same could be said of ‘Basshunter’ if he failed to show at his hearing.

Watchman puts it well.

It’s important to keep political sympathies out of pre-judging a criminal matter.

My personal hunch is that the case will collapse. I won’t speculate too much but I believe that it has nothing to do with the US, and that this will prove to be, one way or another, to do with events that took place – or are claimed to have taken place – in Sweden.

But despite the above, there is something repellent about the widespread claims that Assange has been fitted up, when the case is still under investigation, and the way it has brought out some extremely reactionary gut-reactions about the women in this story from supposedly progressive people.

The fact is, we don’t yet know one way or the other. None of us have all or even most of the facts available to us. We are all dependent on hearsay and rumour.

This a serious matter. Let Swedish justice take its course and don’t trivialise what are very serious allegations (unproven ones as yet, yes).